2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 89,082,360 on October 10, 2013 against the Plaintiff was revoked.

A. The Plaintiff: (a) around May 198, 198, 00 00 -00 - 00 - 313-1 m21 m2 (hereinafter “instant land”); (b)

D) After acquiring the instant land, on December 7, 2012, the instant land was transferred at the time of December 00, 2012.

B. The Plaintiff reported the transfer income tax to the Defendant on February 28, 2013, and the instant land is the Gu tax.

The Special Restriction Act (amended by Act No. 11614, Jan. 1, 2013; hereinafter the same) stipulates that "self-Cultivating farmland for at least eight years" under the main sentence of Article 69 (1) of the Special Restriction Act (amended by Act No. 11614, Jan. 1, 2013; hereinafter the same) constitutes "self-arable farmland for at least eight years", and the defendant applied for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax for the total amount of capital gains tax. However, the defendant decided that the period of direct cultivation of the land in this case by the plaintiff does not reach eight years, and rejected the plaintiff's application for reduction or exemption, and on October 2, 2013, issued a correction notice and notification (hereinafter the "disposition in this case").

C. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and brought an appeal with the Tax Tribunal on December 10, 2013.

B. June 30, 2014 was dismissed.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 2, 3, 4, and Eul evidence 1 and 2

Statement, the purport of the whole pleading

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The period from 2004 to 2008 since the acquisition of the instant land in 1988

Except for the case, since the land of this case was not the rice shed directly, the land of this case is reduced or exempted.

8 years or longer prescribed by the Act on the Reduction and Exemption of Transfer Income Tax. Accordingly, this constitutes self-arable farmland.

On a different premise, the instant disposition should be revoked as it is unlawful.

2) The Plaintiff acquired 00 Do-dong 000 Do-dong 0000 Do-dong 1666 m2 in 1988, but 2011

The above land was transferred, and the defendant transferred the above land to the plaintiff in relation to the transfer income tax of the above land

There is a lack of recognition that direct cultivation has been made.However, the time of acquisition and the time of transfer are the same or similar.

The principle of equity is to deny the fact that the Defendant denies the Plaintiff’s self-defluence on the instant land.

in violation of this section.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Whether the Plaintiff directly cultivated the instant land for at least eight years

A) Relevant legal principles

Section 8 years for a resident prescribed by Presidential Decree residing in a location of the farmland.

Article 66 (13) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26070, Feb. 3, 2015; hereinafter the same shall apply) (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19329, Feb. 9, 2006) provides that "direct cultivation" in Article 69 (1) of the Act means that a resident is engaged in cultivating crops or growing perennial plants on his/her own farmland at all times or cultivating or cultivating them with his/her own labor, with respect to income accruing from the transfer of land prescribed by Presidential Decree, among land cultivated directly by the method prescribed by Presidential Decree."

The exemption clause of this case is the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 4661 of Dec. 31, 1993).

(1) Land cultivated by oneself for at least eight consecutive years from the date of transfer under section 5(6)(d) to the date of transfer;

Article 55 of the former Regulation of Tax Reduction and Exemption Act (amended by Act No. 4666 of Dec. 31, 1993, which was amended by Act No. 5584 of Dec. 28, 1998, which was amended by Act No. 5584 of Dec. 28, 1998), instead of deleting the phrase "land", is derived from newly stipulating "land continuously cultivated for not less than eight years" as "the legislative purpose of this Act is to protect and encourage the owner-led cultivation of farmland."

and the meaning of "direct cultivation" in the above Enforcement Decree provision is defined as above.

From the point of view, the term "direct cultivation" as referred to in the reduction provision of this case means farming by the owner.

Limited to cases where a person works for a full time or at least 1/2 of farming work directly inputs his/her own labor;

In addition, even if the owner's family was engaged in farming work, the owner's own union.

It is reasonable to deem that the use of power can not be substituted by that of using power (Supreme Court Decision 201Da1448 delivered on September 30, 2010

2010Du8423, see Supreme Court Decision 2010Du8423.

Furthermore, directly cultivated the transferred land for not less than eight years while residing in the location of the land as above;

The burden of proof on the facts shall be the taxpayer who asserts the reduction or exemption of the transfer income tax.

See Supreme Court Decision 2002Du7074 Decided Nov. 22, 2002, etc.

B) In the instant case:

He returned to the instant case and in light of the foregoing legal principles, there is no dispute between the parties or parties;

Pleadings in each entry of evidence 1, 12, 1, 3-1 through 4, and 4 of evidence 7

In light of the following facts or circumstances known in addition to the purport of the whole, a witness

The testimony of stuff containers and other evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone are farm farming in the land of this case.

A person who has been engaged in the cultivation of water at all times or at least 1/2 of the farming work with his own labor;

It is not enough to recognize the fact that the land of this case was cultivated directly by cultivating, and otherwise, it is not possible to do so.

there is no evidence that may be prescribed.

① The Plaintiff served as a fire officer from 1979 to 2012 (Evidence A 12)

[See] It seems that the time to put into the cultivation of the land of this case has to be limited.

Therefore, it is difficult to recognize that the plaintiff was engaged in agriculture at all times.

(2) In the farmland ledger first created on June 30, 1993 (No. 7-1 of the evidence A), the land of this case by the plaintiff

The total area of 6,809 square meters, 00 - 00 - 00 - 00 - 312 - 312 - 255-1 255-1 -66 m2

Although it is stated that farmland is self-fluence, the plaintiff's spouse, 000 and 00 mother are also indicated as agricultural workers.

③ The Plaintiff was admitted to the 00 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 O-dong around June, 2010, as the 312 m2,000 m2

8 years or longer in respect of the above land when reporting the capital gains tax to the defendant;

The Plaintiff filed an application for capital gains tax reduction or exemption, and a public official belonging to the Suwon Tax Office

On-site investigation into whether the above land was cultivated directly, and at the time the Plaintiff’s money was

N00 states stated to the effect that "the plaintiff does not have any farming house in the above land" (B)

Evidence 1 to 4, see Evidence 4

④ From 2004 to 2008, the Plaintiff leased the instant land, etc. from the Plaintiff to the farm.

J. (This part also acknowledges the Plaintiff), and he belongs to the OP on July 22, 2013.

From telephone conversations with a public official to 2003, the Plaintiff’s father 000 up to 200

In 2009, the plaintiff stated that he had cultivated it.

⑤ Facts that the Plaintiff had cultivated the instant land from the OOdong Chairperson in 2010

The plaintiff purchased 70 kilograms of rice from the plaintiff at the time of the 2010 Y, and the plaintiff purchased 70 kilograms of rice from the plaintiff at the time of the 2010 Y, and the case from the head of Suwon-si O on September 19, 2012

Although it is recognized that a farmer was issued a certificate of farmland self-development on September 20, 2012, by the head of the office of the office of the office of the head of the office of the office of the office of the head of the office of the office of the office of the head of the office of the office of the office of the head of the office of the office of the office of the head of the office of the office

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

2) Whether the instant disposition violates the principle of equity

Gap evidence 1-2, 16-1, and Eul evidence 4 added the purport of the whole pleadings to the statements

According to Article 67 (3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23590, Feb. 2, 2012), the Plaintiff acquired an OO-dong 255-1 1,66 square meters, but transferred it to the O-si around August 201, 201. The Defendant recognized that the Plaintiff directly cultivated the said land for three years from 2009 to 2011, and applied the provisions of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 111133, Dec. 31, 2011) to reduce and exempt capital gains tax by applying the "reduction and exemption of capital gains tax on the substitute land for five years" under Article 70 of the former Restriction of Special Taxation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23590, Feb. 2, 2012). Thus, it is not required that the Plaintiff directly acquired the said land for five years or more from 20 years to 20 years to 3 years.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so ordered as per Disposition.

shall be ruled.